RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00748 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was struck by a garbage truck entering the Air Force Base in September 1981. The base hospital diagnosed him with contusions and ordered bed rest for 24 to 48 hours. He suffered low back pain till leaving the Air Force in 1988. Since that time, his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability rating has increased from 10% to 100%. He has been on numerous pain medications, lost jobs, and not been able to continue in his chosen career field of law enforcement. He earned a Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice but has not been able to use his degree due to his permanent disability. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 31 May 84, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. According to Standard Form (SF) 93, Report of Medical History, dated 11 Feb 88, block 25 states the following: head injury, cut over left eye in childhood; recurrent back pain muscle spasm, no treatment or diagnosis; and foot trouble refers to foot fungus since 1982. On 28 Mar 88, the applicant received an honorable discharge due to early separation program—strength reduction. He was credited with 3 years, 9 months, and 29 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating the applicant has not provided any evidence of an error or an injustice. Based on the presumption of regularity and the statement made by the applicant confirming his voluntary request for early separation, the discharge to include the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation and character of service was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his current discharge to a medical discharge. The applicant is advised that in order for an individual to receive a “medical discharge,” there must be a disqualifying medical condition present or a condition which interferes with the member’s ability to perform his military duties, worldwide qualification, and does not warrant retention under an Assignment Limitation Code for retention. Even if diagnosed with a medical condition during military service, in order to receive a medical discharge, the individual must be found unfit by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to receive such a designated reason for discharge. The applicant indicates he was injured in September 1981, but continued to perform his duties in an exemplary manner for years thereafter, to include qualification for re-enlistment in 1984. There is also no evidence of a functional impairment sufficient to warrant a Medical Hold of the applicant’s separation date in order to conduct further medical examination and possible Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) proceedings. The examining physician at the time of the applicant’s discharge also noted an absence of treatment and diagnosis to further pursue. In addition, no service medical documentation is supplied that demonstrates a disqualifying medical condition that significantly interfered with the applicant’s ability to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, and rating at the time of his military service. Specifically, there are no documents, e.g. AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, illustrating restrictions were imposed of a sufficient duration, e.g., 12 months or more, and level of restriction, e.g., “L4T,” prohibiting worldwide qualification or warranting referral for an MEB. It should be noted that at or about the time of the applicant’s separation, he signed a memo acknowledging his awareness that a separation physical examination is mandatory before separation or retirement “when certain conditions exist” and that in those instances when the examination is not mandatory, an examination may be administered at the member’s request. The applicant endorsed the memo electing to take the separation medical examination. The applicant did affirm a history of “recurrent back pain” on his separation medical history document, Standard Form 93, completed on 17 Feb 88. On the reverse of the document, reserved for comments by the examining provider, is the statement, “Recurrent back pain muscle spasm, no treatment or diagnosis.” Operating under a different set of laws, Title 38, United States Code, the DVA is authorized to offer compensation for any medical condition determined service-incurred, without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated or proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for separation, or the intervening length of time since the date of separation. This is the reason why an individual may be released from military service for one reason and, yet, sometime thereafter receive compensation from the DVA for one or more medical conditions that were service-incurred, but were not militarily unfitting at the time of release from military service. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Had he not started having medical issues, he would have made the Air Force a career. He is not seeking retroactive pay and only wants his discharge type changed. When he underwent his separation physical examination, the doctor found that he was having back related issues that required daily pain medication. He also indicates had he been counseled regarding the process to apply for medical discharge, he would have done so. Because he was assigned air base defense mobility team duties, he had to be ready to rapidly deploy. In approximately March 1987, during an Operational Readiness Inspection, he deployed and suffered a recurrence of severe back pain. He was transported to the emergency room where the doctor placed him on light duty and bed rest. The doctor was prepared to admit him to the hospital, however; he decided after speaking to his team lead, to tough it out for the few remaining days of the deployment. When he returned to his home station, he continued to experience ongoing back problems which were accompanied by frequent falls due to his left leg “giving out.” By this time, he had decided reenlistment was not an option, so he continued to tough it out. He had a couple of friends who sustained knee injuries and they were being medically discharged. This prompted him to inquire about health related issues during out-processing, but he was advised to submit a disability claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed. While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including attachment, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPR and AFBCMR Medical Consultant, and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While we acknowledge the applicant’s request to have his discharge changed to medical, we do not believe he has demonstrated evidence of an injustice, as compared to others in his similar situation. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00748 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 19 May 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 Oct 15. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Oct 15.